In article 23734767.2066.1410991191470.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com you
write:
Original Message -
From: Nick Crocker nick.croc...@gmail.com
Can someone shed some light on how you might be accomplishing this, I have
a hard time believing that customers are being told they cannot
I'm seeing some weird routing outbound for *some* destinations.
Testing from 208.89.139.252.
google.com resolves for me to 74.125.239.112 and the outbound path is
fast and appears to stay in the US.
yahoo.com resolves for me to 98.138.253.109, but the outbound path
goes through Savvis London,
Hi,
Do you have a reference? Someone just told me it is more around 5GB.
It seems to depend on the device. IIRC my iPhone 4S downloaded ±0.9GB and my
iPad Mini ±1.3GB. That might be because the 4S is still a 32-bit device.
Cheers,
Sander
The issue was seemingly fixed about 30 minutes ago, and has been
confirmed to be fixed by multiple parties. Many thanks for the
response Vincent. Have a fantastic day!
...Todd
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Vincent Aniello vanie...@portware.com wrote:
We are seeing issues on our Savvis
I was perusing RFC5575 after reading a presentation that ALU did
(presumably during some previous NANOG conference). Reference:
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.trafficdiversion.serodio.10.pdf
This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like myself who don't
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote:
Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
Brocade?
I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
actions seem to speak larger than words. There seems to be very little
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote:
And once that happens, what are the chances of services providers
adopting this for their customers to make use of on as wide of a scale
as (for example) blackhole community strings.
I'd certainly *love* to have a way to
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 18 sept. 2014 à 19:53, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net a écrit :
I was perusing RFC5575 after reading a presentation that ALU did
(presumably during some previous NANOG conference). Reference:
On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
Hi Daniel,
This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like myself who
don't have
access to unlimited bandwidth and are put off by off-site scrubbing
services.
As far as I can tell though the only platforms that offer
Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi writes:
On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
Hi Daniel,
This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like
myself who don't have
access to unlimited bandwidth and are put off by off-site scrubbing
services.
As far as I can tell though
Also, if I'm buying full line rate commit from you then you're not
actually losing any money on the deal whether or not you route me the
traffic.
-Daniel
Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net writes:
Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi writes:
On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
Hi Daniel,
This
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:15:41PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
Also, if I'm buying full line rate commit from you then you're not
actually losing any money on the deal whether or not you route me the
traffic.
Ha, I wish all customers would buy in full line rate commits! :-)
- Job
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and going lol, bill.
If you want to start playing
On 9/18/14 1:19 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and going
Hi folks,
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the situation.
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the current
configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have been hearing
reports that destinations in that block are unavailable for some.
Several
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:42:23PM +, Brock Massel wrote:
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
for some.
Several
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
for some.
Several looking glass' report network not in table.
Visible
On Thu 2014-Sep-18 23:08:55 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
for
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no
Sent: Friday, 19 September 2014 9:09 a.m.
To: bmas...@descartes.com; j...@instituut.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 192.250.24.0/22 (as 23034) not reachable from Verizon, tinet,
global
Pingable from Montreal area as well
Gary Baribault
Courriel: g...@baribault.net
GPG Key: 0x685430d1
Fingerprint: 9E4D 1B7C CB9F 9239 11D9 71C3 6C35 C6B7 6854 30D1
On 09/18/2014 05:08 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
current
FWIW ...
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/18/ios-8-adoption-off-to-a-slower-start-than-ios-7-say-multiple-usage-trackers/
Hum, Traceroute is not as nice
traceroute to 192.250.24.1 (192.250.24.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 GW (192.168.0.2) 0.459 ms 0.435 ms 0.422 ms
2 * * *
3 10.170.182.81 (10.170.182.81) 18.417 ms 18.711 ms 18.702 ms
4 216.113.124.126 (216.113.124.126) 16.611 ms 17.774 ms
Karsten,
Thank you I am not sure why those 702 and 19294 old entries would still be
there.
We have engaged 812 for help.
Shall I assume cleaning up the old entries will solve the problems?
-Original Message-
From: Karsten Elfenbein [mailto:karsten.elfenb...@gmail.com]
Sent:
Hello,
I have a Load Balancer that uses a default route to a VRRP IP hosted
between two Juniper MX80 routers. Each MX router has a single BGP feed
from the same provider and each session is currently receiving only a
default route.
I'd like to load balance my outbound traffic across the two
On 16/09/2014 16:26, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What kind of timeframe would a new ccTLD for a major country roll out on?
The main issue wouldn't be the timeframe for a rollout of a Scottish
ccTLD but rather the disengagement from the .UK ccTLD. The legislative
part will take time and there might
Depending on the device used, the zip file can range from
Length: 1515061530 (1.4G) [application/octet-stream]
To
Length: 2119504233 (2.0G) [application/octet-stream]
Parsed from
http://mesu.apple.com/assets/com_apple_MobileAsset_SoftwareUpdate/com_apple_MobileAsset_SoftwareUpdate.xml
Hi, Im new here, so any advice would be very appreciated.
Is someone from Maxmind IP Geolocation available, that I can talk to offline?
Its regarding to a block we assigned to a client. The client and its customers
are located in Mexico but the IP Geolocation services says they are located in
The download was ~1.1GB, the installer requires almost 5GB free to proceed.
Tyler.
On 9/17/14 9:04 PM, JoeSox wrote:
Grant,
Do you have a reference? Someone just told me it is more around 5GB.
--
Later, Joe
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com
wrote:
For
We are seeing issues on our Savvis Internet connections in New York to
users in London and Sweden. Not many details yet, just seeing slow and
sporadic connectivity.
--Vincent
From: Todd Lyons tly...@ivenue.com
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Date: 09/18/2014 05:21 AM
Subject:
Hi,
looks like you mainly use one transit provider (AS812) or your other
transit providers correctly filter that prefix.
According to
https://stat.ripe.net/data/prefix-routing-consistency/data.json?preferred_version=0.7resource=192.250.24.0%2F22
there is no route object for the 192.250.24.0/22.
The more specific objects are more cosmetic issue.
The main problem is the missing object for your /22. As well as your
AS23034 does not seem to be listed in AS-ROGERS:AS-CUSTOMERS
http://bgp.he.net/AS812#_irr
Karsten
2014-09-18 23:54 GMT+02:00 Brock Massel bmas...@descartes.com:
Karsten,
On 9/18/14 11:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote:
Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
Brocade?
I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
actions seem to speak
On 9/17/2014 16:59, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Original Message -
From: Nick Crocker nick.croc...@gmail.com
Can someone shed some light on how you might be accomplishing this, I have
a hard time believing that customers are being told they cannot dial TF
numbers in their own country.
In
I would suggest starting with this form:
https://www.maxmind.com/en/correction
More here: http://nanog.peeringdb.com/index.php/GeoIP
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jose Damian Cantu
Davila
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:18 PM
On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Andy Litzinger andy.litzinger.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I appreciate any ideas!
My idea mainly centers around the operational complexity and difficulty of
troubleshooting a setup of this nature.
Why not just let routing take its natural course? Or at most, play
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Andy Litzinger andy.litzinger.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I appreciate any ideas!
My idea mainly centers around the operational complexity and difficulty of
troubleshooting a setup of this
36 matches
Mail list logo
